Well then, I succeeded!
Huizenga would probably have done it, but had to be talked down by MLB Properties. Teams were all-in on the “let’s look like those new White Sox uniforms, but *insert difference here*!” Pink pinstripes might have happened (the Phillies sublimated scarlet pinstripes read as pink-ish in some lighting conditions), just like with teal and purple.

I can dig it. It’s a nice take on the 1940s/50s caps:
A white outline would improve it, but it still works. The red jersey is fantastic (something they should embrace), while the navy jersey got a big upgrade. I only wish that the red jersey used the “Cleveland” wordmark, but that’s for mod edit reasons.
The ASG identity is basura, but we’ve already gone over that.

TAMPA BAY PIRATES - Vesting the local lore
Tampa Bay Sweepstakes Intro
The first team up-to-bat was the Pirates, during the Three Rivers Stadium lease negotiations and Galbreath sale talks mentioned in my New Orleans and Denver Pirates concepts. Journalists brought up Tampa Bay, along with the District of Colombia and Denver, as a potential landing spot for the club in the mid-1980s.1 Judging by the information relayed in the intro post, we can assume that the Bill Bunker and Rick Dodge courted the Galbreaths to either move to St. Petersburg or sell to Tampa Bay area ownership. Due to a relative lack of information about potential buyers, one can assume that interest in St. Pete (and DC) petered out as the sale proceedings went forward and the Galbreaths sold the team to the Pittsburgh Associates group.2 However, what if either the blackmail didn't work or a Tampa Bay area ownership group materialized?
I figured that the name and colors wouldn't change, seeing as how Tampa Bay area has a long history with pirates and piracy in the form of the apocryphal early-19th century pirate José Gaspar (inspiration for the Gasparilla Pirate Festival).3 It's a large part of the region's lore, so much that, well:
The challenge was to brand the Pirates in a way that didn't conflict with the Buccaneers. I couldn't use a portrait of a pirate (Bucco Bruce) or a jolly roger or a pirate ship (the post-1997 identities and the literal cartoon pirate ship at the RayJay). So, I decide to merge my old jolly roger design with a ship's wheel, akin to a necklace from the manga/anime One Piece. I lifted this specific rendering off of a Clippers concept I made in 2014. The new interlocking "TB" (based on my Minnesota Giants' "TC") resides at the top of the crest. The font for the cap logo and wordmarks is a modified version of Ocean Beach, which I used for both my New York and Minnesota Giants concepts. The secondary is the cap logo, while the tertiary is the skull & bats on its own.
The big change-up when it comes to the uniforms is that I brought back classic-cut vests! Since the team is playing in a more seafaring location and doesn't have the same complex trim that the New Orleans variant showcased, I figured it'd be appropriate. Condensed block NoB's appear here, as does a modified version of Ocean Beach's numeral set.
The alternates feature a gold jersey with the early-1970s jacket script, alongside a black jersey with one-color lettering and sleeves. The tertiary is on the undersleeves of the gold vest.
The second set of alternates are imports from my Project 32 Pirates concept, namely the 1973 home uniform for Roberto Clemente Day and the pillbox cap (now with a TB - I figured it'd stick around until 1986 like it did in our timeline).
The dugout jacket uses the "TB" as a chest insignia.
The identity adapted well to the new location, while avoiding looking too much like the Buccaneers. This relocation would have been a terrible one for baseball (no PNC Park and losing a historical club to a market with overestimated potential), but the brand could have stuck around and thrived (maybe in an open-air, Marlins Park-esque, or sail-like venue). C+C is appreciated, as always!
Up next, let's get fishy.
1 Associated Press, “Some Pirates Pleased About Potential Move,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 9, 1985, sec. Sports; Craig Neff, “The Pirates Are Strictly The Pits,” Sports Illustrated, September 9, 1985, https://www.si.com/vault/1985/09/09/628076/the-pirates-are-strictly-the-pits; UPI, “Pirates Considering New Orleans Move,” Ellensburg Daily Record, April 24, 1981, https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EwEyAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=Ko8DAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=4526%2C2263727
2 Alan Robinson, “Pittsburgh Pirates Sold to Mayor, Steel City Businesses,” AP NEWS, accessed November 8, 2018, https://apnews.com/5d21c423c559d25b5c37f187b832e496.
3 Kenneth Hall, “Seed for Gasparilla Was Planted in the Tribune’s Old Newsroom,” The Tampa Tribune, January 19, 2012, https://web.archive.org/web/20140202094330/http://tbo.com/seed-for-gasparilla-was-planted-in-the-tribunes-old-newsroom-346621.

Eh, I’d say that it works in both locations, but it works more in New York. The Giants/Pirates-style font (specifically the bolder version with slightly-different cuts on the “S” that the Giants use) works well in both NY and SF, but moreso in SF in ways I can’t really explain. We can have both in the identity.
Both options work better than generic rounded slab-serif with those numbers. Lurie Slab and Compacta/ Haettenschweiler numerals are a bad look for the Giants, but decent for the ‘85-‘95 Padres.
Back to the Marlins, I’m liking the new uniforms a lot less than I did earlier, thanks to seeing them in game action. It’s got a bit of a “follow-the-leader” look, trying to emulate the Heat’s Miami Nights uniforms/neon signage/Hotline Miami “A E S T H E T I C” without understanding why those looks work.

I don’t mind the ‘77-‘82 set too much. I’ve always liked that script and the orange-billed cap. The problem was being too colorful with the orange and black jerseys.
Yes, orange sanitaries and white cleats. Ugh. At least the first version had a half-decent attempt to match home and road wordmarks.
The 1983-93 set, due to how much the font deviated from the team’s history and the awful number font (which stuck around until 1999), is always the worst for me.
The font is especially nasty when seen in this context:
There’s probably a similar “San Jose” (sin acento, porque gringos) or “Santa Clara” prototype collecting dust somewhere after the stadium referendum (thankfully) bombed. The ‘94-‘99 set was an upgrade, while the 2000-2011 uniforms were the best the team has ever had.

Yeah, Indy is kind of blank slate in that regard.
Thanks! Yes, the Reds nearly moved to San Diego in 1964. I overlooked it earlier, and I'll fill it in either during or right after the Tampa Bay Sweepstakes.
Thanks! I might try a powder/red variant during a round of updates.
It'll either be The Trop or a similar domed stadium in Tampa proper (see this post).
Thanks, I'm glad you like it! I'm sure you'll enjoy the cavalcade of Tampa Bay moves, what with adapting classic identities and creating new ones.
Thanks! I'll probably complete the retro set further down the line.
Thanks, and you're welcome! I'm glad to see some of the people who were "on the ground" during these relocation/expansion attempts following the thread.
Anyway, let's play the game!
The Tampa Bay Sweepstakes - A Cruel Tampa’s Thesis
This part of the series will see how the Tampa Bay area became the “threat zone” for the major leagues. The market frequently came up in expansion discussions during the 1980s, highlighting a growing population and corporate sector willing to support a team. It had long been a Spring Training site, with several minor-league teams in the area (e.g., the Tampa Smokers and Tarpons). According to Frank Morsani, continuous interest in a major league team started with discussions between the Pinellas County Sports Authority, Tampa mayor Bob Martinez, Tampa Tribune sports editor Tom McEwen, and Yankees owner George Steinbrenner in 1982.1 Groups in the cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg would put together stadium plans, with St. Pete going all the way in building Tropicana Field (then known as the Suncoast Dome) with taxpayer money. There are several key players who will appear throughout the various relocation efforts, so I’ll introduce them now.
Frank Morsani and the Tampa Bay Baseball Group
(From left: Morsani in 2015 and my mockup of the domed stadium, moved from its original site by a block to account for Raymond James Stadium)
Morsani, an adopted resident of the Tampa Bay area, was the president of the Tampa Bay Baseball Group. Morsani recruited individuals such as Ed Winton (radio), Bill Mack (cash), and Cedric Tallis (baseball operations expert) to join the group. They purchased the site of Al Lopez Field in 1983, planning to build a privately-funded domed stadium on the site, compared to the taxpayer-funded proposal put forth by the Pinellas Sports Authority/Sun Coast Baseball Ltd. in downtown St. Petersburg (the site of The Trop). They negotiated to buy controlling interests in several teams, which included the Twins, A’s, Rangers, and an expansion team. They eventually abandoned the plan for the Al Lopez Field site in 1990, partnering with the St. Petersburg investors in landing a team at the newly-constructed Suncoast Dome.2 Morsani would eventually pull out (due to financial duress) and the group would not land an expansion team or a relocated franchise (the closest they came was with the Rangers), leaving the whole operation empty-handed and with a $115 million lawsuit against MLB.3 The Al Lopez Field site now hosts Raymond James Stadium.
The St. Petersburg Groups - Pinellas Sports Authority/Bill Bunker/Rick Dodge, and Vince Naimoli
(From left: model of The Trop, Bill Bunker c. 1959-60s while attending/working at Florida State University, Rick Dodge discussing the Rays' stadium woes in 2010, and Vince Naimoli with his ultimate prize (and horror stories of his ownership).
The rival plan involved the “Gas Plant” site, an area of downtown St. Petersburg. It received criticism for being “less central,” a complaint that has persisted to the present day. In a quote from a period article:
Headed up by Bill Bunker of the Pinellas Sports Authority and St. Petersburg City Manager Rick Dodge, the proposal asked for public money (which amounted to $85 million in 1988, which balooned with time due to toxic cleanup problems and other issues - $138 million). It also went through an "open air with tarp over it" phase in 1983, before being rejected for not hosting non-baseball events. They courted interest from several teams, such as the Pirates and White Sox. With attention from White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf (who wanted out of Old Comiskey), the stadium got approval from the City Council on July 24, 1986. Ground broke in November 1986, with construction finishing in 1990.5 However, eleventh-hour dealing in Illinois kept the Sox in Chicago.6
Reinsdorf’s turn away did not dissuade Tampa Bay investors and officials. Dodge tried to lure struggling Mariners owner Jeff Smulyan into moving the team to St. Pete in 1991/92, be it through relocation or a sale. However, Nintendo stepped in to buy the team after a long dispute with the other MLB owners.7 A group led by Vince Naimoli (President of Anchor Glass Container Corp.) in 1992 made the most successful attempt at relocation, offering $115 million to buy the Giants from Bob Lurie. However, after a successful $100 million counter-offer from Safeway CEO Peter Magowan gained the 9-4 approval of the other National League owners.8 Naimoli then sued Major League Baseball for $3.5 billion in an antitrust suit, prompting the creation of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.9
I’ll go into more detail on each individual entry, but this is the “master post” that will provide the basic outline/timeline of events.
First up, a bit of co-branding!
1 Frank Morsani and Dave Scheiber, To Be Frank: Building the American Dream in Business and Life (Tampa: BlackWood Books, 2015), 121-22; Anders Gyllenhaal, “Tampa, St. Pete Slug It out for a Baseball Franchise,” The Miami Herald, July 18, 1983, sec. Front; AP, “Expansion: It’s Not If, but Rather When and Where - Panel Studying Adding up to Six More Teams,” The Seattle Times, March 3, 1985, sec. Sports; Peter Richmond, “Moving Teams: Logical, Unlikely,” The Miami Herald, April 30, 1985, sec. Front; John Jackson, “Cities in the Running for Possible Expansion,” The Record, November 7, 1985.
2 Kenneth S. Allen and Robert Samek, “Baseball Group Unity Brings Decision Time,” Tampa Bay Times, December 31, 1988, sec. Tampa Bay and State; Gyllenhaal, “Tampa, St. Pete Slug It out for a Baseball Franchise;” Morsani and Scheiber, To Be Frank, 121-40.; “Tampa Baseball Group Pays Overdue Fee,” Tampa Bay Times, January 26, 1989, sec. Tampa Bay and State; David Olinger, Robert Samek, and Thomas C. Tobin, “Baseball Cold War Warms up in Bay Area,” Tampa Bay Times, December 25, 1988, sec. Tampa Bay and State; Marc Topkin, “Former Expansion Rivals Join Forces with Porter,” Tampa Bay Times, February 20, 1991, sec. Sports; UPI, “Tampa to Build Domed Stadium,” The New York Times, January 13, 1984, sec. Sports, https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/13/sports/tampa-to-build-domed-stadium.html.
3 AP, “Tampa Investors Settle with MLB,” Sarasota Herald, September 27, 2003, sec. Sports, https://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20030927/News/605227064.
4 Olinger, Samek, and Tobin, “Baseball Cold War Warms up in Bay Area.”
5 Derek Carton, “Dodge: St. Petersburg’s ‘Road Raider,’” Orlando Sentinel, August 23, 1992, sec. Sports, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-08-23/sports/9208230193_1_rick-dodge-bunker-petersburg-mayor; Eric Okurowski, “StadiumPage.Com - 1983 St. Petersburg Concept,” Stadium Page, 2012, http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/83StPete_R.html; Deborah Sharp, “ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - As Steel Beams Rise from a Construction Site in This City’s Downtown, Controversy Simmers over the Major League Baseball Stadium Some Locals Have Dubbed the ‘Dumb Dome.,’” USA Today, March 16, 1988; Marc Topkin, “From White Sox to Giants to Devil Rays, It’s Been a Long Trip - How the Team Was Won,” Tampa Bay Times, March 31, 1988, sec. Sports; Russ White, “Florida Suncoast Dome: A Gem Without A Diamond St. Petersburg’s $309 Million Arena To Open Saturday,” Orlando Sentinel, February 25, 1990, sec. Sports, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-02-25/sports/9002253309_1_building-the-dome-suncoast-dome-florida-suncoast.
6 Michael Martinez and Special To the New York Times, “White Sox Are Safe at Home,” The New York Times, July 2, 1988, sec. Sports, https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/02/sports/white-sox-are-safe-at-home.html.
7 Tom Farreyjoni Balter, “M’s Sale Gets Go-Ahead - Full Acceptance of Offer Predicted for Tomorrow,” The Seattle Times, June 9, 1992, sec. News; Ron Judd, “Bail-Out? Floridians All Smiles for Smulyan,” The Seattle Times, August 24, 1991, sec. Northwest.
8 Topkin, “From White Sox to Giants to Devil Rays, It’s Been a Long Trip - How the Team Was Won;” “Owners Approve Giants’ Non-Move,” Tampa Bay Times, January 13, 1993, sec. Sports.
9 AP, “Tampa Group Sues For $3.5 Billion,” The Seattle Times, November 13, 1992, sec. Sports http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921113&slug=1524459; Topkin, “From White Sox to Giants to Devil Rays, It’s Been a Long Trip - How the Team Was Won.”
Further Reading: Stadium For Rent: Tampa Bay's Quest for Major League Baseball by Bob Andelman and To Be Frank: Building the American Dream in Business and Life by Frank Morsani and Dave Scheiber.

Let's use Dressed to the Nines to corroborate that. Apologies in advance for the image bomb.
-1909 features the debut of the "NY" on the sleeve:
-1912 features the appearance of pinstripes, only for them to drop off the next year, then return two years later):
-1917 sees pinstripes w/ no chest insignia appear, with the basic road uniform appearing in 1918. A pinstriped home cap appears in 1919 and 1921, while the 1927-30 teams used a "Yankees" wordmark on the road uniform:
-1935 features the last non-insignia home uniform, with the 1936 team restoring the "NY" to its proper place:
I would say that your statement is not entirely accurate. The modern look didn't stick until the 1930s, but the pinstripes long predated the decade. The 1930s were a great period of codification for many of baseball's classic looks. The Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, Cubs, Tigers, and Dodgers all debuted designs/colors that would reappear throughout the ensuing years:
Back to the original point of your post, none of those "classic" teams got it right the first time (not counting the Orioles for the Yankees). Here are their 1903 (year of first World Series) looks, with the Cardinals tossed in (I'm not going to go into the boatload of birds-on-bat variations and how the modern version is a descendant of the 1956 script redesign):
I must admit, I wouldn't mind seeing the Yankees break out that road uniform in Spring Training or against a similar pre-1910 uniform set.
"Got it right the first time" only really works if we're talking about post-1961 expansion or relocation changes. The Marlins didn't even really get it right the first time, with the teal being overpowering on the set from 1993-96. The 1997 tweaks put it over the top (if you're following the thread, you know what they did). I'd argue that a teal-billed cap on both home and road sets would have been the perfect hat (as well as a teal jersey and all-teal hat for select home games), but '97 was closer to a strong brand than '93.

Aside from going with the 1960s color balance (navy with red only on outlines), most people here have given up on the "switch their colors" approach. Cleveland and Atlanta are far more subject to these talks, with the former being for a rebranding for MOD EDIT reasons and the latter being an attempt to "Pittsburgh-ify" Atlanta's teams under the black/red/gold banner (a foolhardy venture, given how the Braves went out of their way to leave Atlanta proper).
Totally. Nostalgia would work as a branding venture, especially if the team is several years away from being competitive. Maybe going with a retro-inspired new brand would be a bad idea if the new ownership group wanted to put their stamp on the team later, but it's a legitimate strategy for the time being. Heck, even wearing throwbacks on a regular basis/showcasing throwbacks to the International League Marlins and all of the Florida-era iterations of the team would work. Pick-and-choose, experiment, etc. I do agree that the full redesign timing was a ways off.
We simply have a different conception of the brand and what we want out of it. No biggie.
I mocked up what they might have looked like circa 1997-2002:
It wouldn't deviate too much from the Marlins' 1993-2002 appearance. The team would probably have relegated black to the main color circa 2003, while using a "toothpaste" flamingo with the Art Deco-styled set. Either that or Loria would have gone full "BUT PINK IS A GIRL'S COLOUR" and dumped the name for Marlins and his beloved black/orange.

Of course you guys can be nostalgic, I’m not saying that you’re not allowed to do that at all. I just rather the team wouldn’t do that.
Maybe it’s me speaking as an outsider, but the black fits well with the location. I’d rather it not be a big part of their look (a dark teal, akin to the Eagles or Sharks, would be my choice), but I get why the team has emphasized throughout the Miami period.
I consider the current look a bit radical, if only for the color scheme’s emphases and arrangement on the uniform. Nobody does the combination of traditional cursive with drop shadows and semi-neon colors, hence why I’d regard it as radical (yet more restrained - the Art Deco/MiMo of the previous set had potential to be a bit restrained - it probably would have had better reception).
Again, I’m not saying that Marlins fans aren’t allowed to be nostalgic. I’m saying that it wouldn’t be what I’d want out of the team. Then again, I’m not the target audience.

I get the desire to appeal to team history and that many fans want the teal back (emotional connection to those two championships), but I side more with letting that part of the past slide away. The 2012-18 set was a radical departure and tried to be very "Miami," but I wouldn't say it exceeded it. The '12-'18 set was a bit of a mess with inner shadows, a slab-serif number font, and the toothpaste marlin. I'd argue that its issues were somewhat more glaring than the new set's problems. This refreshed brand tries to strike a middle ground between the "traditional baseball" and "Miami nightlife aesthetic," and is a few tweaks away from being an excellent Miami-ified look for the team. Still, I'd have tweaked the previous set to better resemble the MiMo or Art Deco aesthetic with fewer colors and less emphasis on black (or no black at all, but a dark teal as the base). That would be the perfect identity.
I see the reasons for going back to an update of the teal/black/silver, but I don't find them compelling enough to dissuade me from liking a more modern, radical direction for the club. Then again, I'm not the target audience.

I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that “just go back to it” doesn’t work for the Marlins.
With the Mets, Blue Jays, and Phillies, they had plenty of sustained success in their “vintage” looks and were coming off of dated designs (the Mets’ BFBS additions to their classic wordmarks and scripts, the Phillies’ 1970s kitsch, and the Blue Jays’ big step outside their aesthetic tradition (blue-centric with split lettering) that included BFBS and a shortened team script). I have absolutely nothing against traditional looks.
With the Marlins, I want to see something new. Something that symbolizes a fresh start for the team as Miami’s team would be best. Forget about Huizenga’s big fire sale that killed sustained success after 1997, forget about Loria’s two fire sales/preferred color scheme, and forget about the constant legal and financial quagmires the team has had. This set comes close to capturing a new ethos, drawing from something not often seen in baseball (light, near-neon accents on a bunch of black).
Would I want tweaks? Sure! Team name on the home set, a few details adjusted on the cap logo, no separate primary logo, and a blue script with light red shadow on the black jersey would all be great ideas.
Nostalgia and modernizations of classic looks aren’t always the solution. The Marlins are a team that can really push a modern identity, and they’ve come close here. There’s more potential here than with a modern overhaul of the 1990s set.

Or banking off of nostalgia, trying to distract fans from the real problems facing a rebuilding team and a new ownership group. Some would say "return to form," I'd say "pandering."
Heck, the teal-heavy look's criticism is often lost in the history of the '93-'02/'03-'11 identity. Too much of that bright teal proved to be a problem for some. If the team had to bring back the set full-time, they'd go with the black caps and accessories of the 1997-'03 variant. While the teal may be a "quintessential" Miami (or South Florida suburbs, if we're being honest) color, it just doesn't work with the whole "neon colors among Miami's nights" theme. I think the latter is far more compelling than the former, when done correctly (which it sort of was with this redesign).
Also, that "Marlins" wordmark from '93-'11 is a typographic trash heap. @Gothamite has pointed out its flaws repeatedly and I agree that it should be left in the past.

Honestly, this is why I’d prefer the team abandons the name. They’ve shown indifference towards reaching out to First Nations throughout their history and I don’t see that changing. A rebrand would put controversy to rest.
Heck, I maintain that the team should have rebranded upon moving to The Jake in 1994. New stadium, new name/identity, ready to shake off decades of irrelevance.